I’m not a big fan of this line of thinking, because it very quickly leads into “Every homophobe is a closeted homosexual”, which is some genuinely insane levels of victim blaming when you actually think about it. Are we seriously going to suggest that queer people are to blame for our own oppression? And for that matter, if homophobia is only enacted by closeted queer people, then what made them closeted in the first place? In a world where no straight person is every homophobic, no queer person would ever have felt any shame about who they are.
Are we seriously going to suggest that queer people are to blame for our own oppression?
No…?
I’ve never seen anyone make this claim.
It makes some sense that the people who violently bottle up all of their impulses, who are then the most unhappy about it, just to fit in with their right wing community are then the ones who A) think about it the most often, and B) imagine that the “devil’s temptation” and the repression thereof is normal for most people, when it really isn’t.
—But this isn’t the same as saying that only gay people are homophobic. It’s just a kind of pathology that leads to being the most militant about it. You end up working the hardest to fit in because you’re the most at risk of losing that.
But even more than that, I’m not sure I believe straightness is really “real.” If everyone is “a little bit queer”, and conservatives are the only ones rejecting that, then this is just an indication that their ideas don’t really pan out. They would claim straightness is normal, default, but they can’t hold themselves to it; it’s not actually possible.
So, those are two different answers to the one problem you’ve put forward, but in either case, or neither, I don’t really see this as the gays attacking themselves. The right wing is just kinda wack, you know?
If you’ve never seen anyone make the claim that every homophobe is a closeted homosexual, then congratulations, welcome to the Internet, this must be a really exciting first day for you.
And if you read it a little more carefully, you’ll notice that I was not accusing the previous commenter of making that claim. I said that their argument felt dangerously close to making that claim. It’s important to interrogate the implications of our arguments, even (in fact, especially) when they’re made in jest or for the purposes of mockery. It’s all too easy to get ourselves into mindsets that seem reasonable, but actually have really dangerous implications.
If you’ve never seen anyone make the claim that every homophobe is a closeted homosexual
No. This one:
queer people are to blame for our own oppression
This is a dangerous implication, but I don’t see it being made. In this thread. And elsewhere. I don’t see people, even conservatives, making this accusation.
Because no one makes that accusation directly. I’m really trying not to be a dick here, but you do know what “implication” means, right?
If every homophobe is a closeted queer person then that automatically implies that homophobia is only perpetuated by queer people. That’s not what people think they’re saying when they make that claim, but it is the only logical conclusion.
And just because you didn’t think about the implications of something, doesn’t change the fact that they’re there.
Your interpretation implies that the queer element of the oppressive queer conservative is the more substantive one.
I think most people correctly recognize it is the conservative element that is the more oppressive one.
I think even conservatives recognize this because the only time they don’t want credit for the nasty things they do is when they’d get in trouble. They like the oppression. They want the credit.
So, you are hearing people blame queer people. And I am hearing them blame conservatives.
A queer person is fine. Naturally. A queer conservative, well… what happened, right?
The fear you have then, I suppose, is that someone might hear the word “queer” or “lgbt” and think “Ah. You must be a conservative. Too bad you banned gay marriage for yourselves, hm?”, which is something I’m really trying to impress on you here: does not grok with me.
I don’t see this implication you’re worried about being reinforced—that means reflected in the other things people do and say—because this idea of the self-inflicted wound is not useful to anyone’s political ends.
Granted, maybe someday in the future, conservatives will try to use ideas like this to absolve themselves, the same way holocaust denial works.
But today, I only see people pointing out a strong hypocrisy among the conservative community. One that is conservative-self imposed: by living so inauthentically, they are placing themselves into a pressure cooker.
And further, because the ideal conservative lifestyle is so strict, as authoritarians are won’t to do, everyone is placed in this pressure cooker.
Heterosexuality, a different sexual pathology, is expressed very conservatively in the incel community.
Like, on some level, you are arguing against the adage “everything is about sex, and sex is about power,” which, as far as I know, is pretty well regarded. It’s not a secret that the right wing is insanely insecure.
I am sorry to have gotten a bit condescending here, but then I should be asking why you are giving me lessons on subtext.
I’ve looked at your comment history, you seem like a smart person. I don’t really understand where this is coming from.
If all black birds are ravens, then if a bird is black, by definition it is a raven.
If all homophobes are queer, then by definition all homophobia is enacted by people who are queer.
Therefore, the statement “every homophobe is a closeted queer person” automatically excludes all straight people from being capable of homophobia. The moment a straight person does something homophobic, they must, according to this line of thinking, actually be a closeted queer person.
And while the intent is to point out conservative hypocrisy, the effect, very subtly, is to craft a universe where straight people are absolved of any culpability for the existence of homophobia. It becomes, by definition, a queer problem.
I am not arguing against any of the things you seem to think I’m arguing against, nor am I making any of the points you seem to think I’m making. Everything in your previous comment is a response to an invention that exists solely in your head. I am making the point that I have just stated, as plainly as it is possible to state it. If you’re still not getting it, sit back, have a cup of coffee, and read it again.
I think usually when I see that idea, is more along the lines of “doth protest too much, methinks.” A lot of the most vocal homophobes are at least slightly bi or at least seem to like either , partly just because of how common being at least slightly bi is and they go out of their way to deny it. That can be true and still much more casual homophobia by straight people can still be the most common source of homophobia and what pushes people to extremes in their denial. But I also wonder if the argument is sometimes made in hopes of making people afraid of being too homophobic in fear of being seen as gay.
it very quickly leads into “Every homophobe is a closeted homosexual”, which is some genuinely insane levels of victim blaming when you actually think about it.
I was being intentionally hyperbolic for comedic effect rather than trying to be totally nuanced.
There’s plenty of examples of people who are outwardly liberal being homophobic- it happens all the time towards people who are seen as ‘not on their team’ ie how often Democrats (online, comedians, etc) will mock someone like lindsey graham because he’s a bit queeny.
You also see it when liberals do stuff like portray Putin and Trump kissing because men kissing bad, right?
To be clear, this wasn’t a “call out” or whatever the fuck the kids call it now. I just think it’s really important to always interrogate the implications of our arguments. Things we say in jest can still reinforce dangerous or damaging ideas.
Historically the church and then law made them closeted in the first place!
It wasn’t always abnormal for (wealthy) men to have male concubines or lovers- until the Abrahamic religions that is
The cool thing about (religious) propaganda is it doesn’t have to be true, it’s only biased on faith. Faith that these white men know the divine and will stop you from having a fearful afterlife. They don’t need proof, just faith. Few people get butthurt no one wants to hurt their butts and they ban it for everyone
I’m not a big fan of this line of thinking, because it very quickly leads into “Every homophobe is a closeted homosexual”, which is some genuinely insane levels of victim blaming when you actually think about it. Are we seriously going to suggest that queer people are to blame for our own oppression? And for that matter, if homophobia is only enacted by closeted queer people, then what made them closeted in the first place? In a world where no straight person is every homophobic, no queer person would ever have felt any shame about who they are.
No…?
I’ve never seen anyone make this claim.
It makes some sense that the people who violently bottle up all of their impulses, who are then the most unhappy about it, just to fit in with their right wing community are then the ones who A) think about it the most often, and B) imagine that the “devil’s temptation” and the repression thereof is normal for most people, when it really isn’t.
—But this isn’t the same as saying that only gay people are homophobic. It’s just a kind of pathology that leads to being the most militant about it. You end up working the hardest to fit in because you’re the most at risk of losing that.
But even more than that, I’m not sure I believe straightness is really “real.” If everyone is “a little bit queer”, and conservatives are the only ones rejecting that, then this is just an indication that their ideas don’t really pan out. They would claim straightness is normal, default, but they can’t hold themselves to it; it’s not actually possible.
So, those are two different answers to the one problem you’ve put forward, but in either case, or neither, I don’t really see this as the gays attacking themselves. The right wing is just kinda wack, you know?
If you’ve never seen anyone make the claim that every homophobe is a closeted homosexual, then congratulations, welcome to the Internet, this must be a really exciting first day for you.
And if you read it a little more carefully, you’ll notice that I was not accusing the previous commenter of making that claim. I said that their argument felt dangerously close to making that claim. It’s important to interrogate the implications of our arguments, even (in fact, especially) when they’re made in jest or for the purposes of mockery. It’s all too easy to get ourselves into mindsets that seem reasonable, but actually have really dangerous implications.
No. This one:
This is a dangerous implication, but I don’t see it being made. In this thread. And elsewhere. I don’t see people, even conservatives, making this accusation.
Because no one makes that accusation directly. I’m really trying not to be a dick here, but you do know what “implication” means, right?
If every homophobe is a closeted queer person then that automatically implies that homophobia is only perpetuated by queer people. That’s not what people think they’re saying when they make that claim, but it is the only logical conclusion.
And just because you didn’t think about the implications of something, doesn’t change the fact that they’re there.
Your interpretation implies that the queer element of the oppressive queer conservative is the more substantive one.
I think most people correctly recognize it is the conservative element that is the more oppressive one.
I think even conservatives recognize this because the only time they don’t want credit for the nasty things they do is when they’d get in trouble. They like the oppression. They want the credit.
So, you are hearing people blame queer people. And I am hearing them blame conservatives.
A queer person is fine. Naturally. A queer conservative, well… what happened, right?
The fear you have then, I suppose, is that someone might hear the word “queer” or “lgbt” and think “Ah. You must be a conservative. Too bad you banned gay marriage for yourselves, hm?”, which is something I’m really trying to impress on you here: does not grok with me.
I don’t see this implication you’re worried about being reinforced—that means reflected in the other things people do and say—because this idea of the self-inflicted wound is not useful to anyone’s political ends.
Granted, maybe someday in the future, conservatives will try to use ideas like this to absolve themselves, the same way holocaust denial works.
But today, I only see people pointing out a strong hypocrisy among the conservative community. One that is conservative-self imposed: by living so inauthentically, they are placing themselves into a pressure cooker.
And further, because the ideal conservative lifestyle is so strict, as authoritarians are won’t to do, everyone is placed in this pressure cooker.
Heterosexuality, a different sexual pathology, is expressed very conservatively in the incel community.
Like, on some level, you are arguing against the adage “everything is about sex, and sex is about power,” which, as far as I know, is pretty well regarded. It’s not a secret that the right wing is insanely insecure.
I am sorry to have gotten a bit condescending here, but then I should be asking why you are giving me lessons on subtext.
I’ve looked at your comment history, you seem like a smart person. I don’t really understand where this is coming from.
If all black birds are ravens, then if a bird is black, by definition it is a raven.
If all homophobes are queer, then by definition all homophobia is enacted by people who are queer.
Therefore, the statement “every homophobe is a closeted queer person” automatically excludes all straight people from being capable of homophobia. The moment a straight person does something homophobic, they must, according to this line of thinking, actually be a closeted queer person.
And while the intent is to point out conservative hypocrisy, the effect, very subtly, is to craft a universe where straight people are absolved of any culpability for the existence of homophobia. It becomes, by definition, a queer problem.
I am not arguing against any of the things you seem to think I’m arguing against, nor am I making any of the points you seem to think I’m making. Everything in your previous comment is a response to an invention that exists solely in your head. I am making the point that I have just stated, as plainly as it is possible to state it. If you’re still not getting it, sit back, have a cup of coffee, and read it again.
I think usually when I see that idea, is more along the lines of “doth protest too much, methinks.” A lot of the most vocal homophobes are at least slightly bi or at least seem to like either , partly just because of how common being at least slightly bi is and they go out of their way to deny it. That can be true and still much more casual homophobia by straight people can still be the most common source of homophobia and what pushes people to extremes in their denial. But I also wonder if the argument is sometimes made in hopes of making people afraid of being too homophobic in fear of being seen as gay.
Strawman argument and stupid
Please learn what that term actually means.
I was being intentionally hyperbolic for comedic effect rather than trying to be totally nuanced.
There’s plenty of examples of people who are outwardly liberal being homophobic- it happens all the time towards people who are seen as ‘not on their team’ ie how often Democrats (online, comedians, etc) will mock someone like lindsey graham because he’s a bit queeny.
You also see it when liberals do stuff like portray Putin and Trump kissing because men kissing bad, right?
To be clear, this wasn’t a “call out” or whatever the fuck the kids call it now. I just think it’s really important to always interrogate the implications of our arguments. Things we say in jest can still reinforce dangerous or damaging ideas.
Historically the church and then law made them closeted in the first place!
It wasn’t always abnormal for (wealthy) men to have male concubines or lovers- until the Abrahamic religions that is
The cool thing about (religious) propaganda is it doesn’t have to be true, it’s only biased on faith. Faith that these white men know the divine and will stop you from having a fearful afterlife. They don’t need proof, just faith. Few people get butthurt no one wants to hurt their butts and they ban it for everyone
Thins are not as discreet as that.